If India and Pakistan nuke each other ...

rocket sok
Shop deals on ebay
the model rocket show
shop deals on amazon
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
rharshberger said:
Well....9/11 could have been straight out of Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor's ending, I know its a book, and we aren't exactly for certain where Flight 93 was going, though two very senior Al-Qaeda leaders have said it was the capitol...
Click to expand...

If you think Tom Clancy got it close, you should read Dale Brown "Storming Heaven". He all but predicted the names of the attackers...in 1996.

Fallout it a fickle thing. It's dependent on many, many factors. Type of bomb, det altitude, prevailing winds, type of target, etc.

No, the fallout won't "blanket the whole northern hemisphere". It will diffuse in a gradient-like fashion, with a very strong lobe that trails along the prevailing winds (or strong local winds, weather-depending). There *will* be detectable levels of fallout elsewhere, sure. But that's a far cry from the sensationalist "blanketing the northern hemisphere" statement. And that's if it's a low-altitude burst. Higher bursts tend to produce less, of course that's also dependent on the type of munition.

To put it another way, the strongest/largest nuke ever detonated, Tsar Bomba at around 50 Mt, didn't cause a nuclear winter in the northern hemisphere. It *did* send a shockwave around the earth about 2-3 times, and broke windows as far away as Alaska (it was detonated in northern Siberia, at Novaya Zemlya). It *did* produce a fireball that was about 8km in diameter. It *did* leave detectable traces in the atmosphere, but so did everyone else's nuke tests. Funny thing, it was actually intended to be a 100 Mt det.


Go to https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ and have an enlightening time playing around with different configurations in the India/Pakistan region.

EDIT: I'm not trying to downplay or degrade the level of threat here. Make no mistake, nuclear war of any sort is terrible in its sheer destructive power and potential for collateral damage. I'm just trying to sprinkle some realism into the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nuc in the atmosphere spreads some bad stuff, and all.. But a nuc as intended, at ground level (or where it supposed be detonated for full effect) would create a massive debris cloud.. and that debris cloud would also have a devastating effect.. No?
Like massive amounts of dust & particles the few Volcanoes we seen recently (~150 yrs) lay.
 
dr wogz said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nuc in the atmosphere spreads some bad stuff, and all.. But a nuc as intended, at ground level (or where it supposed be detonated for full effect) would create a massive debris cloud.. and that debris cloud would also have a devastating effect.. No?
Like massive amounts of dust & particles the few Volcanoes we seen recently (~150 yrs) lay.
Click to expand...
That's what I was saying earlier, that even though massive nuclear bombs do throw a bunch of nasty in the air, they have to be big bombs, and there have to be a LOT of them in order to cause world wide issues.

The first thermonuclear explosion the US created (Ivy Mike) was fired on the ground (it was a building and not really a deliverable bomb), and the 10 Megaton blast created a crater over a mile wide and 164 feet deep. Lots of nasty got tossed up in the air that day and fallout was detected thousands of miles away.

The largest bomb the US fired (Castle Bravo) was also fired on the ground and created a similar sized crater, although the magnitude was 1/2 again as big at 15 Megatons. The fallout from this was detected all over.

Either of these bombs is more than all the bombs that India and Pakistan have, combined (according to what I found online, which has to be true if it's on the internet). Even if they set off every bomb they have and they kill a lot of Indians and Pakistanis, but the fallout won't kill us, or cause nuclear winter.
 
I am not worried about it at all. Let the cards fall where they may. It is what it is. There is a plan in place.
 
from what I have read tsar bomba test was not intended to involve the surface with the fireball so surface dust and debris were not involved nor was it over a large amount of salt water...short answer they went for the 'cleanest' test they could.
Rex
 
It is good news that the Pakistanis have already returned the Indian pilot, apparently in good condition. Despite some shelling across the border, things seem to be calming down. Here is hoping cooler heads prevail!
 
For a long time after I saw "The Day After" as a kid I was both haunted and fascinated with the destructive potential of a large-scale nuclear conflict.

Then as an adult I saw the film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road." Although it isn't specified that the apocalypse was caused by nuclear war it's a prime contender, and regardless of the cause it shows a terrifying reality that would follow an ensuing collapse of civilization.

To this day whenever someone talks about watching scary movies, I always throw out "The Road" as a candidate. To this day no one I've suggested it to has watched it. I will probably never watch it again. It was just too disturbing to contemplate how that could become reality.
 
Last edited:
muddymooose said:
For a long time after I saw "The Day After" as a kid I was both haunted and fascinated with the destructive potential of a large-scale nuclear conflict.

Then as an adult I saw the film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road." Although it isn't specified that the apocalypse was caused by nuclear war it's a prime contender, and regardless of the cause it shows a terrifying reality that would follow an ensuing collapse of civilization.

To this day whenever someone talks about watching scary movies, I always throw out "The Road" as a candidate. To this day no one I've suggested it to has watched it. I will probably never watch it again. It was just too disturbing to contemplate how that could become reality.
Click to expand...

I’ve watched The Road once. Never again. I’ve never been so depressed after watching a movie. And I usually like dark, depressing movies. But this felt too real. It has completely ruined me for any other post apocalyptic genre movie.
 
Rex R said:
from what I have read tsar bomba test was not intended to involve the surface with the fireball so surface dust and debris were not involved nor was it over a large amount of salt water...short answer they went for the 'cleanest' test they could.
Rex
Click to expand...

I wasn't using it as a way to compare "cleanliness" (although that's a very, very relative term when discussing early Russian nukes)...I was using it to underline the fact that the most powerful weapon ever detonated, by itself, is very nearly as strong as all of India and Pakistan's current deployed warheads, combined (assuming the estimates of both numbers and yield are close to correct. Those are about 25-30 Mt total for India, and 35-40 Mt total for Pakistan).

And it didn't cause a nuclear winter, nor any long-term, apocalyptic scenarios for the entire northern hemisphere.

Try the link I posted...it's quite eye-opening regarding the actual effects of different weapon systems.
 
dr wogz said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nuc in the atmosphere spreads some bad stuff, and all.. But a nuc as intended, at ground level (or where it supposed be detonated for full effect) would create a massive debris cloud.. and that debris cloud would also have a devastating effect.. No?
Like massive amounts of dust & particles the few Volcanoes we seen recently (~150 yrs) lay.
Click to expand...

Correct. Generally speaking, airbursts are "cleaner" than ground or near-ground burst. Airbursts tend to have a wider effective radius, while ground bursts tend to have much, much larger fallout plumes.

Strategically, the thought is ground burst for area denial / "scorched earth", airburst for direct destructive effect and secondary effects (thermal, EMP, etc), but still allows occupation afterward (generally).
 
To put numbers on it, according to nukemap, if Islamabad was hit dead-center with a ground burst from an 250kt Agni-III (which I don't even know if that's one of its modes of attack, but assuming the worst-case scenario):

Fireball Radius: .72 km
Air blast (>/= 20 psi overpressure) radius: 1.37 km
Radiation (>/= 500 rem): 2.09 km
Air blast (< 20 psi, >/= 5 psi) 2.88 km
Thermal (3rd degree burns from direct exposure) radius: 5.84km
Air blast radius (< 5psi, >/= 1 psi): 7.41 km

The fallout lobe, assuming an average of 15mph winds, would be 47.5 km wide x 270 km long to the NE.

Casualties are 200,000ish.

Catastrophic? yes. Terrible and inhumane? you bet. Hardly world-shattering though, in the grand scheme.
 
Don't worry, we got this...

We have the most diverse military evah…

Because diversity is war fighting imperative...
 
shanejohnson2002 said:
To put numbers on it, according to nukemap, if Islamabad was hit dead-center with a ground burst from an 250kt Agni-III (which I don't even know if that's one of its modes of attack, but assuming the worst-case scenario):

Fireball Radius: .72 km
Air blast (>/= 20 psi overpressure) radius: 1.37 km
Radiation (>/= 500 rem): 2.09 km
Air blast (< 20 psi, >/= 5 psi) 2.88 km
Thermal (3rd degree burns from direct exposure) radius: 5.84km
Air blast radius (< 5psi, >/= 1 psi): 7.41 km

The fallout lobe, assuming an average of 15mph winds, would be 47.5 km wide x 270 km long to the NE.

Casualties are 200,000ish.

Catastrophic? yes. Terrible and inhumane? you bet. Hardly world-shattering though, in the grand scheme.
Click to expand...

There you go, using facts to explain things!

Shame on you, not letting baseless emotional fear get in the way of science. (sarcasm)

Well done sir, and thank you.
 
shanejohnson2002 said:
To put numbers on it, according to nukemap, if Islamabad was hit dead-center with a ground burst from an 250kt Agni-III (which I don't even know if that's one of its modes of attack, but assuming the worst-case scenario):

Fireball Radius: .72 km
Air blast (>/= 20 psi overpressure) radius: 1.37 km
Radiation (>/= 500 rem): 2.09 km
Air blast (< 20 psi, >/= 5 psi) 2.88 km
Thermal (3rd degree burns from direct exposure) radius: 5.84km
Air blast radius (< 5psi, >/= 1 psi): 7.41 km

The fallout lobe, assuming an average of 15mph winds, would be 47.5 km wide x 270 km long to the NE.

Casualties are 200,000ish.

Catastrophic? yes. Terrible and inhumane? you bet. Hardly world-shattering though, in the grand scheme.
Click to expand...

I'm a little surprised at how low those numbers are given that Hiroshima (~15 kt) had a total destruction radius of 1.6 km and ~70,000 immediate fatalities. That was set for detonation at 2300' altitude, which I assume makes a difference. I don't know enough to really dispute the numbers--they're just surprising to me.

I agree that we probably wouldn't see world-ending fallout (though we'd notice, I'm sure). Of course, WWI also started with a ham-handed assassination.
 
boatgeek said:
I'm a little surprised at how low those numbers are given that Hiroshima (~15 kt) had a total destruction radius of 1.6 km and ~70,000 immediate fatalities. That was set for detonation at 2300' altitude, which I assume makes a difference. I don't know enough to really dispute the numbers--they're just surprising to me.

I agree that we probably wouldn't see world-ending fallout (though we'd notice, I'm sure). Of course, WWI also started with a ham-handed assassination.
Click to expand...

That’s the thing. The number of fatalities in the first strike usually just a fraction of the ultimate dams. Compare the number of people killed on 9/11 to the number who have died since. It never stops at one strike.
 
Ground burst versus an airburst, a ground burst will produce the most fallout.
The inverse square law and atmospheric attenuation will also decrease the the effects somewhat, as will surrounding
terrain.

Nuclear weapons are very powerful, the use of them in war should be avoided. However they are not some
all destructive hyper weapon.
 
boatgeek said:
I'm a little surprised at how low those numbers are given that Hiroshima (~15 kt) had a total destruction radius of 1.6 km and ~70,000 immediate fatalities. That was set for detonation at 2300' altitude, which I assume makes a difference. I don't know enough to really dispute the numbers--they're just surprising to me.

I agree that we probably wouldn't see world-ending fallout (though we'd notice, I'm sure). Of course, WWI also started with a ham-handed assassination.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on how they quantified "total destruction". At which radius in my breakdown did they decide the destruction wasn't "total" anymore?

Definitely agree about WW1. At least WW2's beginning made a little sense...dude with too much power tried to convince Europe it was a good idea to let him do whatever he wanted. More dudes with too much power disagreed until it was almost too late.
 
mach7 said:
Ground burst versus an airburst, a ground burst will produce the most fallout.
The inverse square law and atmospheric attenuation will also decrease the the effects somewhat, as will surrounding
terrain.

Nuclear weapons are very powerful, the use of them in war should be avoided. However they are not some
all destructive hyper weapon.
Click to expand...

I *love* the inverse square law. It pops up everywhere. Gravity, sound, EM/RF, you name it.

While we're on the topic of avoiding nuclear war, I feel like I should also mention the *best* place to intercept a nuclear missile, is before it even launches. The supply chain, isotope production, fuel production, parts, etc can all be sabotaged or destroyed MUCH easier than MIRVs (with about a dozen decoys) can be successfully destroyed by anti-missile systems.

Basically, once it launces, the chances drop dramatically. Post-apogee, it's practically impossible.
 
shanejohnson2002 said:
I guess that depends on how they quantified "total destruction". At which radius in my breakdown did they decide the destruction wasn't "total" anymore?

Definitely agree about WW1. At least WW2's beginning made a little sense...dude with too much power tried to convince Europe it was a good idea to let him do whatever he wanted. More dudes with too much power disagreed until it was almost too late.
Click to expand...

Fair point. A wind speed of 150 mph would generate ~0.4 psi overpressure. Tornadoes of that strength tend to wipe the ground clean, so that's probably not far off of the "total destruction" number. Accounting for humming a few bars and faking the calcs (and that tornadoes don't have linear winds), an equivalent radius for that calc would probably be in the 7-10 km range with >1psi overpressure at 7.4 km. That's starting to cover an awful lot of Islamabad (pop. 1M) and a fair bit of Rawalpindi (pop. 2M). Having seen construction standards in the area, I would guess the 200K immediate fatalities figure is probably low. It wouldn't help for long-term figures that the quality of health care outside of the big cities is pretty low and that the city hospitals would likely be damaged or destroyed if the balloon went up.

shanejohnson2002 said:
While we're on the topic of avoiding nuclear war, I feel like I should also mention the *best* place to intercept a nuclear missile, is before it even launches. The supply chain, isotope production, fuel production, parts, etc can all be sabotaged or destroyed MUCH easier than MIRVs (with about a dozen decoys) can be successfully destroyed by anti-missile systems.

Basically, once it launces, the chances drop dramatically. Post-apogee, it's practically impossible.
Click to expand...

The only way to win is not to play.
 
muddymooose said:
Then as an adult I saw the film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road." Although it isn't specified that the apocalypse was caused by nuclear war it's a prime contender, and regardless of the cause it shows a terrifying reality that would follow an ensuing collapse of civilization.

To this day whenever someone talks about watching scary movies, I always throw out "The Road" as a candidate. To this day no one I've suggested it to has watched it. I will probably never watch it again. It was just too disturbing to contemplate how that could become reality.
Click to expand...

Truth is always more horrifying than Fiction . . .

With Fiction, you can be shocked and disturbed, by what you have seen or read, and return to your "everyday life".

With Truth, it is your existence, as you stagger about with your skin hanging like burned rags, you hair falling out in huge clumps, suffering intense nausea and vomiting . . . Until Death, finally, mercifully, removes you from a Hell on Earth, created by Man.

Personally, I want to "go in the fireball", rather than waiting for the Radiation to finish me off . . .

The only "satisfaction" comes from knowing that we did the same, or worse, to the enemy who attacked us !

"The Road" is a "must see" . . . Do not expect to be entertained . . . Expect to be horrified and deeply-touched . . . Learn from the experience !

Dave F.





 
shanejohnson2002 said:
Meaning what, exactly?
Click to expand...

Meaning he's doing his normal thing where he tries to bait people into a religious and/or racial and/or political argument.

Notice how he hasn't responded to your question?

He's probably within a post or two of being banned, unless he's been watching himself lately. He's on my ignore list so I wouldn't know. I only saw this post wondering what you were talking about.

But back to the topic: getting blown up by a nuke isn't as bad as dying slowly from after effects years later. I'll gladly accept an early death vs. radiation poisoning.
 
timbucktoo said:
Trolls should not be fed.
Click to expand...

Rex R said:
from what I have read tsar bomba test was not intended to involve the surface with the fireball so surface dust and debris were not involved nor was it over a large amount of salt water...short answer they went for the 'cleanest' test they could.
Rex
Click to expand...

kyle said:
Meaning he's doing his normal thing where he tries to bait people into a religious and/or racial and/or political argument.

Notice how he hasn't responded to your question?

He's probably within a post or two of being banned, unless he's been watching himself lately. He's on my ignore list so I wouldn't know. I only saw this post wondering what you were talking about.

But back to the topic: getting blown up by a nuke isn't as bad as dying slowly from after effects years later. I'll gladly accept an early death vs. radiation poisoning.
Click to expand...

Not my first day on the internet, professors. Thanks.

I *might* have been trying to draw him out on purpose...*maybe* if he can be coerced into saying something bad enough, he could *finally* be banned. Maybe. Long shot, but could be interesting, especially seeing as how I'm currently serving in this same military he's ignorantly trying to profile from a rather sideways position.

At any rate, no further discussion necessary. Roger, got it, he's a troll. Drive on.
 

Similar threads

Dave S.
shroud line attachment - why would you want the lines to cross over each other??
Replies
9
Views
790
49markt
49markt
rfjustin
Sold 3" Fiberglass Custom Two-Stager
Replies
6
Views
1K
rfjustin
rfjustin
sandeja1
BMS Contact?
Replies
11
Views
892
BEC
BEC
V
Puzzling Flight Results - Why Do You Think It Happens
Replies
6
Views
475
gldknght
gldknght
Rocketteer
Sold PML HP Kits $159 each
Replies
6
Views
1K
Rocketteer
Rocketteer

Latest posts

Back
Top